Obtaining God's Forgiveness

[jcrichton]

Yes — like, you say: “Catholics do not believe we are saved now”; but you and I agree that salvation is possessed by those who receive Jesus. As in, “He who has the Son, has eternal life; I write this that …you may know you have eternal life.” (1Jn5:11-13)

Hi, Gadgeteer!

While non-Catholic theology embraces “saved” or “salvation” or “believe” as guarantors of their eternal security, Catholic theology embraces Christ Himself as our guarantor of our eternal security.

Here’s how “vocabulary” weighs in… we understand Salvation as Done Deal in Christ Jesus, but not outside of Him; we Believe that we Walk in Faith; that, through Christ, God has Given us the Grace to Walk in Faith… yet our actual Salvation is not own by any of us–not even the most holy of us since our will can turn from God to self and we can fail to Stand (Abide and Witness) for Christ by choosing ourselves (the flesh/sin) over God.

We Believe as the Apostles that our Salvation is Hidden in Christ… that though it is a Done Deal from God’s side, we are still in a sojourn not having attained the status of “Saved;” yet, Living (Walking) in the Hope of our Salvation, which is hidden in Christ:

24 For we must be content to hope that we shall be saved – our salvation is not in sight, we should not have to be hoping for it if it were – 25 but, as I say, we must hope to be saved since we are not saved yet – it is something we must wait for with patience.

(Romans 8:24-25–JB)

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. (Romans 8:24-25–KJ)

You know, that has

to be James’ meaning in 5:19-20. Nothing else works. And Paul in Rom11:23, and many other verses…
Exactly! …such passages are the enhanced version of Ezekiel 181

I betchya’ read that in 2Cor6…

Yes, which brings us to the promises of the Old Covenant which find their fulfillment in the New Covenant… but this fulfillment is not a mere completion of or mirroring of but actually an elevation (as the ripping of the Temples (Holy of holies) curtains/veils).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Exactly that. And — not mere “mental-assent-belief” (James2:19), but belief which receives Jesus as Savior and Master, that communes with the real persons of Son, Spirit, and Father; truly indwelt fellowship. That embodies Gal2:20, it is as if Jesus works His good deeds through us!

To me, “hidden-with-Christ”, is that we are removed from spiritual danger; as long as we dwell in Him.

Might be confusing to some; "though dead, you shall live. But to live you must first die, and he who believes in Me shall never die." :doh2:

With spiritual teaching, we come to understand: "Though (physically) dead, you shall live (spiritually, forever). But to (be spiritually) alive you must first die (to sin), and he who believes in Me shall never die (shall have eternal life and exult in Jesus’ presence and escape the fiery-second-death)…

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…yes… this is the Hidden in Christ… our Salvation, our Walk, our Existence, our Works, our Hope…

St. Paul explains it this way:

19 In other words, God in Christ was reconciling the world to himself, not holding men’s faults against them, and he has entrusted to us the news that they are reconciled. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ; it is as though God were appealing through us, and the appeal that we make in Christ’s name is: be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake God made the sinless one into sin, so that in him we might become the goodness of God.

(2 Corinthians 5:19-21)
…while an ambassador fully represents his/her Sovereign, he/she holds but the “Seal” (Hope) not the actual Power… the Power remains with the Sovereign. In this way too is our Salvation… fully Done Deal but the currency that we are able to hold/exchange is that of the “Seal” (Hope) not the actual Authority (“I AM the Resurrection and the Life”).

…and I fully concur with you… Jesus’ Teachings are quite simple (presentation) and quite complex (the actual meaning/principles/authority)… yet, when we allow the Holy Spirit to Unfold Jesus’ Word it is easy as pie (which must be understood from its proper perspective: ‘as easy as eating a pie’).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[PJM]

:extrahappy:

PJM, you are a blessing to me!

Thank you so very much

Please let Me know if you have any questions you’d like to discuss.

Continued Blessings,

Patrick [PJM]

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

:tiphat:

While non-Catholic theology embraces “saved” or “salvation” or “believe” as guarantors of their eternal security, Catholic theology embraces Christ Himself as our guarantor of our eternal security.

I don’t see that; the non-Catholic theology to which I’ve been exposed, view Jesus as “guarantor of salvation” – not of eternal security, and I’ve not seen “guarantor-of-eternal-security” in Catholicism.

That which is conditional on a second party, cannot be guaranteed by the first party…

Here’s how “vocabulary” weighs in… we understand Salvation as Done Deal in Christ Jesus, but not outside of Him; we Believe that we Walk in Faith; that, through Christ, God has Given us the Grace to Walk in Faith… yet our actual Salvation is not own(ed) by any of us–not even the most holy of us since our will can turn from God to self and we can fail to Stand (Abide and Witness) for Christ by choosing ourselves (the flesh/sin) over God.

Yet you agree that we “possess salvation”. We own it, in the sense that we abide in Jesus — we make the choice, and we make the same choice tomorrow and every day.

We Believe as the Apostles that our Salvation is Hidden in Christ… that though it is a Done Deal from God’s side, we are still in a sojourn not having attained the status of “Saved;” yet, Living (Walking) in the Hope of our Salvation, which is hidden in Christ:
24 For we must be content to hope that we shall be saved – our salvation is not in sight, we should not have to be hoping for it if it were – 25 but, as I say, we must hope to be saved since we are not saved yet – it is something we must wait for with patience. (Romans 8:24-25–JB)

24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. (Romans 8:24-25–KJ)

RE “vocabulary” — the term “saved”, only means “possessing-eternal-life”.

He who has Jesus has eternal life, you may know you have eternal life.

This has nothing to do with where a person is tomorrow; today, one who is indwelt by Jesus, has eternal life – is “saved”. Salvation is a gift of grace (God’s part), received by our faith (our part); it’s the same faith each day, which is why Paul said in Rom1:17 “from beginning faith to ending faith”.

Your first citation (JB) is a complete rewrite; that’s not what Paul wrote. “Sōzō” is aorist-passive-indicative, “you have been saved”. We do not wait for salvation, we wait for our hope.

Let’s discuss “hope” – the meaning today is far different than in the First Century.

“I hope I win the lottery!”
Yeah, a snowball’s chance in the Sahara for that! No, back then “hope” was a certainty:

“Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.” Heb11:6

“Elpis” is expectation, and it is the THING hoped for!

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope,” 1Tim1:1

The problem is that if we perceive salvation as “incomplete”, then Jesus’ sacrifice did not pay all of the price; there still has to be something additional done. But if Jesus completed payment on the Cross, then salvation is “complete” – we receive the completed gift, we receive Jesus, and we are saved. Any gift can be thrown away:

“Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.” Heb10:35 — “confidence” per Heb6:19 & 10:19 is Jesus…

We are saved now, who possess Jesus; and we are “protected by the power of God (His!) through faith (ours!) for a salvation to be revealed in the end time.” 1Pet1:5, 9

Exactly! …such passages are the enhanced version of Ezekiel 18!

Very much so. Most all of Scripture is admonition to “abide in Jesus and in salvation” – it takes work to pursue doctrines of OSAS…

Yes, which brings us to the promises of the Old Covenant which find their fulfillment in the New Covenant… but this fulfillment is not a mere completion of or mirroring of but actually an elevation (as the ripping of the Temples (Holy of holies) curtains/veils).

Yes. The very essence of our salvation, is “that which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered for us…” We are invited behind the veil, to fellowship in the very presence of Almighty God. Only cleansed by Jesus’ blood is that possible.

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…yes… this is the Hidden in Christ… our Salvation, our Walk, our Existence, our Works, our Hope…

St. Paul explains it this way:
19 In other words, God in Christ was reconciling the world to himself, not holding men’s faults against them, and he has entrusted to us the news that they are reconciled. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ; it is as though God were appealing through us, and the appeal that we make in Christ’s name is: be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake God made the sinless one into sin, so that in him we might become the goodness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:19-21)

“Deomai” — we beg you, beseech you, be reconciled.

…while an ambassador fully represents his/her Sovereign, he/she holds but the “Seal” (Hope) not the actual Power… the Power remains with the Sovereign. In this way too is our Salvation… fully Done Deal but the currency that we are able to hold/exchange is that of the “Seal” (Hope) not the actual Authority (“I AM the Resurrection and the Life”).

I have a solar radio. If I put it in the sunlight, it plays. The power is fully by sunlight, but I have to keep it in the sunlight. Isn’t that how our faith works too?

“Building yourselves in holy faith, KEEP YOURSELVES in His love, waiting anxiously for the mercy of Christ to eternal life…” Jude20-21

…and I fully concur with you… Jesus’ Teachings are quite simple (presentation) and quite complex (the actual meaning/principles/authority)… yet, when we allow the Holy Spirit to Unfold Jesus’ Word it is easy as pie (which must be understood from its proper perspective: ‘as easy as eating a pie’).

I dunno – apple, or cherry???

 

[Gadgeteer]

Thank you so very much

Please let Me know if you have any questions you’d like to discuss.

Continued Blessings,

Patrick [PJM]

Even ones like — did Adam and Eve have belly-buttons???

:extrahappy:

 

[PJM]

:tiphat:

I don’t see that; the non-Catholic theology to which I’ve been exposed, view Jesus as “guarantor of salvation” – not of eternal security, and I’ve not seen “guarantor-of-eternal-security” in Catholicism.

That which is conditional on a second party, cannot be guaranteed by the first party…

Yet you agree that we “possess salvation”. We own it, in the sense that we abide in Jesus — we make the choice, and we make the same choice tomorrow and every day.

RE “vocabulary” — the term “saved”, only means “possessing-eternal-life”.

He who has Jesus has eternal life, you may know you have eternal life.

This has nothing to do with where a person is tomorrow; today, one who is indwelt by Jesus, has eternal life – is “saved”. Salvation is a gift of grace (God’s part), received by our faith (our part); it’s the same faith each day, which is why Paul said in Rom1:17 “from beginning faith to ending faith”.

Your first citation (JB) is a complete rewrite; that’s not what Paul wrote. “Sōzō” is aorist-passive-indicative, “you have been saved”. We do not wait for salvation, we wait for our hope.

Let’s discuss “hope” – the meaning today is far different than in the First Century.

“I hope I win the lottery!”
Yeah, a snowball’s chance in the Sahara for that! No, back then “hope” was a certainty:

“Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.” Heb11:6

“Elpis” is expectation, and it is the THING hoped for!

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope,” 1Tim1:1

The problem is that if we perceive salvation as “incomplete”, then Jesus’ sacrifice did not pay all of the price; there still has to be something additional done. But if Jesus completed payment on the Cross, then salvation is “complete” – we receive the completed gift, we receive Jesus, and we are saved. Any gift can be thrown away:

“Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.” Heb10:35 — “confidence” per Heb6:19 & 10:19 is Jesus…

We are saved now, who possess Jesus; and we are “protected by the power of God (His!) through faith (ours!) for a salvation to be revealed in the end time.” 1Pet1:5, 9

Very much so. Most all of Scripture is admonition to “abide in Jesus and in salvation” – it takes work to pursue doctrines of OSAS…

Yes. The very essence of our salvation, is “that which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered for us…” We are invited behind the veil, to fellowship in the very presence of Almighty God. Only cleansed by Jesus’ blood is that possible.

My friend according to your opening dialog on this POST; TRUTH and RIGHT understanding have no significance:shrug:

My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?

Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith”

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20]** Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation**. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
[Douay explanation]

[20] No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise. End Quotes

“Whenever something is good it does not depend on us getting our way, but on God getting His way, and whether we do God’s Will depends on us [humbly] loving God. Moreover to love God we must [actually] know God, [not just know OF God].” Bread of Life booklet January 9, 2016”Mt 7:21

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t see that; the non-Catholic theology to which I’ve been exposed, view Jesus as “guarantor of salvation” – not of eternal security, and I’ve not seen “guarantor-of-eternal-security” in Catholicism.

That which is conditional on a second party, cannot be guaranteed by the first party…

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…perhaps we are still missing each other due to our vocabulary… (it is funny that this morning Father Mitch Pacwa actually mentioned this very issue); here’s Catholic take on what non-Catholic profess: '…are you “saved?” (a variation of the OSAS–where man knows that he has already attained eternal salvation; coupled with the various theological divergences where there’s no need of Church or it’s an invisible church or a gathering without Sacraments or any of the variants combined in various levels and depths…); that’s what I termed “guarantor.”

Catholic theology requires Christ in His Fullness; this means that Salvation is God’s Gift and it is Eternal and God will not take it back… but it is predicated upon Abiding in Christ… to believe that one has attained eternal Salvation as a personal possession is the sin of presumption ('do nothing but claim Christ as Lord and Savior and regardless of your Walk you got “eternal Salvation” in your pocket).

Yet, on this exchange you have hit on Catholic understanding of Salvation while still retaining what can be perceived as non-Catholic theology on Salvation (‘got “eternal Salvation” in my pocket!’); which continues to bring us back to “vocabulary.”

Yet you agree that we “possess salvation”. We own it, in the sense that we abide in Jesus — we make the choice, and we make the same choice tomorrow and every day.

RE “vocabulary” — the term "saved"

, only means “possessing-eternal-life”.

He who has Jesus has eternal life, you may know you have eternal life.

This has nothing to do with where a person is tomorrow; today, one who is indwelt by Jesus, has eternal life – is “saved”. Salvation is a gift of grace (God’s part), received by our faith (our part); it’s the same faith each day, which is why Paul said in Rom1:17 “from beginning faith to ending faith”.
I would put it as: “if we abide in Jesus, since He is the Resurrection and the Life, we possess Salvation.” Curiously enough it is a simple thing… yet, if you look at it closely you will see that it is not possession of eternal Salvation but of Christ that then allows us to be the inheritors/bearers of that eternal Salvation. Yet since non-Catholics focus much on “are you saved?,” rather than are you in “Christ?” …we may simply just be missing each other due to the vocabulary.

Your first citation (JB) is a complete rewrite; that’s not what Paul wrote. “Sōzō” is aorist-passive-indicative, “you have been saved”. We do not wait for salvation, we wait for our hope.

Let’s discuss “hope” – the meaning today is far different than in the First Century.

“I hope I win the lottery!”
Yeah, a snowball’s chance in the Sahara for that! No, back then “hope” was a certainty

:

“Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen.” Heb11:6

“Elpis” is expectation, and it is the THING hoped for!

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope,” 1Tim1:1

The problem is that if we perceive salvation as “incomplete”, then Jesus’ sacrifice did not pay all of the price; there still has to be something additional done. But if Jesus completed payment on the Cross, then salvation is “complete” – we receive the completed gift, we receive Jesus, and we are saved. Any gift can be thrown away:

“Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.” Heb10:35 — “confidence” per Heb6:19 & 10:19 is Jesus…

We are saved now, who possess Jesus; and we are “protected by the power of God (His!) through faith (ours!) for a salvation to be revealed in the end time.” 1Pet1:5, 9

Very much so. Most all of Scripture is admonition to “abide in Jesus and in salvation” – it takes work to pursue doctrines of OSAS…
I cannot argue with etymology or with language (not a linguist/scholar); yet, while JB may have taken the liberties in its transliteration of the passage, it remains that our Salvation is not in “our pockets” as a passport or travel document but it is fully dependent upon our abiding in Christ.

It is to our Hope/Inheritance to which St. Paul speaks in Ephesians 1:11-23–Salvation is not measured out; it is complete; yet, it is an inheritance that only those who remain in Christ will receive!:

…13 Now you too, in him, have heard the message of the truth and the good news of your salvation, and have believed it; and you too have been stamped with the seal of the Holy Spirit of the Promise 14 the pledge of our inheritance which brings freedom for those whom God has taken for his own, to make his glory praised. 15 That will explain why I, having once heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus, and the love that you show towards all the saints… 18 May he enlighten the eyes of your mind so that you can see what hope his call holds for you, what rich glories he has promised the saints will inherit… 22 He has put all things under his feet and made him, as the ruler of everything, the head of the Church; 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills the whole creation.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

“Deomai” — we beg you, beseech you, be reconciled.

I have a solar radio. If I put it in the sunlight, it plays. The power is fully by sunlight,

 

[Gadgeteer]

My friend according to your opening dialog on this POST; TRUTH and RIGHT understanding have no significance

How do you perceive that?

My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?

In theological discussions/debates, the issue is “INTERPRETATION”. If someone can prove a passage in the Bible is clear, that only one meaning can exist, then there is no such thing as “interpretation”. In play is simply what the Apostle wrote.

That’s the premise behind how I deal with the entire Reformed Theology doctrine. They cite 1Cor2:14 certain that it intended “Unregenerated men cannot understand enough to believe and receive Jesus, God must zap their hearts with regeneration first, only then can they receive the spiritual things and understand.” But verse 12 puts “receiving-the-Spirit” (which absolutely is believing-to-salvation and receiving Jesus and the Spirit), first. In no way can their “interpretation” continue.

Then Reformers cite 2Cor4:3-4, certain that it intends “God must unveil their hearts FIRST, only AFTER the veil is removed can they turn to Him.” But 2Cor3:16 blatantly puts “turning-to-God”, before “veil-removed” (which also fits Jesus’ understanding of Isaiah6:10, Jesus said in Matt13:15 “men close their OWN eyes and ears against salvation!”). In no way can their “interpretation” continue.

I list all fifty-five-verses that Calvinists use towards “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”, and overturn their interpretation with contextual verses. When only one meaning is proven, there is no such thing as “interpretation”. Do you or anyone have any way to disagree?

Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

That is absolutely true. Yet – James says “Abraham was justified by works”, and “man is justified by works and not by faith alone”. But then Paul says “if justification is by works, then (a man) can boast; Abraham’s BELIEF was CREDITED as righteousness (justification)”. Rom4:2-5. There is no interpretation possible for either passage; James says “justified by works and not by faith alone”. Paul says “if justified by works then bragging-rights, …belief is credited as righteousness/justification”. Clear meaning for both passages.

…but clear meaning which is opposite between the two. Did James teach opposite to Paul? James explains his meaning in verses 2:22-23, works complete faith, and (James repeats Paul’s words of Rom4:3) it is (COMPLETED) faith by which we are justified/declared-righteous! And we see that James does not contradict Paul, they both say the same; justification is by faith alone, AND James furthers the idea that it is COMPLETED faith which receives God’s justification.

Is that just “an interpretation”? Or is it clearly what James, and Paul, stated? Is there any other interpretation possible?

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith”

All Scripture is inspired by God; and we study and learn the same teachings no matter which writer we read!

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20]** Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation**. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.
[Douay explanation]

Do you deny what I said about “interpretation”? Where only one meaning is possible, there is no such thing as “interpretation”. Without this principle no diverse doctrine could ever be refuted.

[20] No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise. End Quotes

It is one thing to say “we-reject-private-interpretations”, it is quite another to demonstrate an errant interpretation in Scripture.

Take the two examples above against Reformed Theology — is 2Cor3:16 a “private interpretation”? No; it is clearly stated, “WHEN a man TURNS to the Lord, (only then!) the veil over his heart is removed.” Is 1Cor2:12 a “private interpretation”? No, it is clearly stated — “We receive the Spirit (believe to salvation!) and THEN receive the THINGS that natural men do not understand”.

Clear statements are not open to interpretation; that’s the whole basis of theological discussion, striving to understand Scriptural context so that the Apostle’s intent is indisputably exposed. For a dispute to exist, a credible alternate explanation (INTERPRETATION!) must be proposed. But when only one meaning is possible, there is no such thing as “interpretation”.

 

[Gadgeteer]

“Whenever something is good it does not depend on us getting our way, but on God getting His way, and whether we do God’s Will depends on us [humbly] loving God. Moreover to love God we must [actually] know God, [not just know OF God].” Bread of Life booklet January 9, 2016”[Mt 7:21

PJM, doctrines like Reformed Theology only continue because adherents dismiss verses; they read 1Cor2:14 and dismiss verse 12. They read 2Cor4:3-4 and dismiss 2Cor3:16. They read Acts13:48 and dismiss verse 46. They read Jeremiah 17:9 and dismiss verse 10. They read Rom9:15 and dismiss Rom11:32! And on and on and on!

It is easy to say “You cannot have your own private interpretation” — but unless someone can show how an understanding is any kind of “interpretation” rather than something an Apostle clearly stated, it’s the same dismissal-of-verses performed by the Reformed Theologians!

Can you disagree?
[/quote]

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…perhaps we are still missing each other due to our vocabulary… (it is funny that this morning Father Mitch Pacwa actually mentioned this very issue); here’s Catholic take on what non-Catholic profess: '…are you “saved?” (a variation of the OSAS–where man knows that he has already attained eternal salvation;

When you agree that “we can possess and know we possess eternal life, now” (based on verses like 1Jn5:11-13, “You can KNOW you HAVE eternal life”) — that’s the same thing as when someone of my understanding says “we are saved”.

And you and I agree that we may not be saved tomorrow; but here, now and today, we can say with certainty “we are saved”, because we are merely repeating the promise Jesus made; and Paul repeated, and Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John, and everyone.

coupled with the various theological divergences where there’s no need of Church or it’s an invisible church or a gathering without Sacraments or any of the variants combined in various levels and depths…); that’s what I termed “guarantor.”

From God’s side salvation is guaranteed — “the gifts and calling are irrevocable”. But from our side we can throw the gift away, as we can with any gift. That does not mean that when we had the gift, we could not then say “I was saved”…

Catholic theology requires Christ in His Fullness; this means that Salvation is God’s Gift and it is Eternal and God will not take it back… but it is predicated upon Abiding in Christ… to believe that one has attained eternal Salvation as a personal possession is the sin of presumption ('do nothing but claim Christ as Lord and Savior and regardless of your Walk you got “eternal Salvation” in your pocket).

With complete respect, no one says “regardless of our walk”. I mean no offense, there is something called “a straw man” — overturning an argument by responding to something that was not asserted. Many don’t even realize that is what they’re doing.

John said, “He who has the Son has eternal life — …you may KNOW you HAVE eternal life.” For you or I to say “I have Jesus, I have eternal life”, is identically the same as saying, “I am saved”. That’s all it means; we are saved who receive Jesus and walk in Him, and we WILL BE saved if we CONTINUE walking in Him.

Yet, on this exchange you have hit on Catholic understanding of Salvation while still retaining what can be perceived as non-Catholic theology on Salvation (‘got “eternal Salvation” in my pocket!’); which continues to bring us back to “vocabulary.”

“Vocabulary” is important; but it’s not your vocabulary, or mine — it’s what the Apostles said, and which absolutes we can establish in their words.

I would put it as: “if we abide in Jesus, since He is the Resurrection and the Life, we possess Salvation.”

That is all that, “I AM SAVED”, means.

Curiously enough it is a simple thing… yet, if you look at it closely you will see that it is not possession of eternal Salvation but of Christ that then allows us to be the inheritors/bearers of that eternal Salvation. Yet since non-Catholics focus much on “are you saved?,” rather than are you in “Christ?” …we may simply just be missing each other due to the vocabulary.

Specifying “in-Christ” rather than a useless head-knowledge is an admirable position; yet — “saved” by Scriptural definition is the same perception, “in-Christ”.

“if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” Rom10:9-10

Confessing Jesus as Lord, believing in one’s heart, is “saved”. That is what Paul said. You’re right that does not mean “in-our-pockets-don’t-worry-about-tomorrow”, but here today we can be “saved” – is there any other meaning to Paul’s words?

I cannot argue with etymology or with language (not a linguist/scholar); yet, while JB may have taken the liberties in its transliteration of the passage, it remains that our Salvation is not in “our pockets” as a passport or travel document but it is fully dependent upon our abiding in Christ.

Agreed.

It is to our Hope/Inheritance to which St. Paul speaks in Ephesians 1:11-23–Salvation is not measured out; it is complete; yet, it is an inheritance that only those who remain in Christ will receive!

That is what Scripture says.

And as you said, “vocabulary” (semantics) are important; how can we resolve differences, if we do not understand each other’s meaning?

I think this is an excellent discussion; if we do not come to complete agreement (and no two or more people in the world will, until Jesus returns), then we are gaining great insight into each other’s understanding! And others are watching, and between our words they are learning about Jesus.

And we work together to become and remain family in Christ, forever; and to promote Him to a lost and dying world.

(Are you sure Catholics don’t say “amen”?)

;-p

 

[Gadgeteer]

Hi, Gadgeteer!

Excellent visual!

This is our Abiding in Christ (St. John 15:1-10) so that ***He ***may ABIDE in us!

John15:4 — in what Universe does John not intend, “Abide in Me, and (then I will abide) in you!”?

It’s the same in 2Tim2:11-13; in what Universe is the word “BUT”, not absolutely implied?

"For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
If we endure, we will also reign with Him;

(BUT!)

If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself."

Two positions – “died to sin, and live with Jesus; endure with Jesus and reign with Him.”

And, “deny Him and He will deny us (and we will NOT live and reign with Him, Matt10:33); become faithless and perish!”

Here again Paul asserts God’s dependability; His faithfulness is perfect, even if WE turn away from Him and perish! It wasn’t His fault…

…I’m partial to strong colors… so I would take a black cherry pie!

With or without the blackbirds baked in?

:extrahappy:

 

[PJM]

How do you perceive that?

In theological discussions/debates, the issue is “INTERPRETATION”. If someone can prove a passage in the Bible is clear, that only one meaning can exist, then there is no such thing as “interpretation”. In play is simply what the Apostle wrote.

Which explains the ever growing multiplicity of non-Catholic-Christian churches

That’s the premise behind how I deal with the entire Reformed Theology doctrine. They cite 1Cor2:14 certain that it intended “Unregenerated men cannot understand enough to believe and receive Jesus, God must zap their hearts with regeneration first, only then can they receive the spiritual things and understand.” But verse 12 puts “receiving-the-Spirit” (which absolutely is believing-to-salvation and receiving Jesus and the Spirit), first. In no way can their “interpretation” continue.

Then Reformers cite 2Cor4:3-4, certain that it intends “God must unveil their hearts FIRST, only AFTER the veil is removed can they turn to Him.” But 2Cor3:16 blatantly puts “turning-to-God”, before “veil-removed” (which also fits Jesus’ understanding of Isaiah6:10, Jesus said in Matt13:15 “men close their OWN eyes and ears against salvation!”). In no way can their “interpretation” continue.

I list all fifty-five-verses that Calvinists use towards “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”, and overturn their interpretation with contextual verses. When only one meaning is proven, there is no such thing as “interpretation”. Do you or anyone have any way to disagree?

SURE

It’s objectively termed TRUTH, which can be nothing other than singular per defined issue. Friend, where in the BIBLE is there evidence that GOD every sought, desired, wanted, tolerated or accepted OTHER competing faiths?

That is absolutely true. Yet – James says “Abraham was justified by works”, and “man is justified by works and not by faith alone”. But then Paul says “if justification is by works, then (a man) can boast; Abraham’s BELIEF was CREDITED as righteousness (justification)”. Rom4:2-5. There is no interpretation possible for either passage; James says “justified by works and not by faith alone”. Paul says “if justified by works then bragging-rights, …belief is credited as righteousness/justification”. Clear meaning for both passages.

**My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?

Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith”**

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

“Whenever something is good it does not depend on us getting our way, but on God getting His way, and whether we do God’s Will depends on us [humbly] loving God. Moreover to love God we must [actually] know God, [not just know OF God].” Bread of Life booklet January 9, 2016”[Mt 7:21]

but clear meaning which is opposite between the two. Did James teach opposite to Paul? James explains his meaning in verses 2:22-23, works complete faith, and (James repeats Paul’s words of Rom4:3) it is (COMPLETED) faith by which we are justified/declared-righteous! And we see that James does not contradict Paul, they both say the same; justification is by faith alone, AND James furthers the idea that it is COMPLETED faith which receives God’s justification.

That my friend is you’re Protestant [to PROTEST] subjective interpretation

Is that just “an interpretation”? Or is it clearly what James, and Paul, stated? Is there any other interpretation possible?

THERE IS; read the following paying close attention to the HS inspired singular tense words

M t.10:1-5, Mt 16:15-19, Jn 17:17-20, Mt 28:19-20; Eph 4: 1-7 & Eph 2:19-22 each of which is precisely and exclusively directed by JESUS to and only to HIS CC

All Scripture is inspired by God; and we study and learn the same teachings no matter which writer we read!

Which objectively is false by the evidence that every “church” is identified by ITS OWN set of faith beliefs & the ever increasing number of NEW “christian” Churches.

Do you deny what I said about “interpretation”? Where only one meaning is possible, there is no such thing as “interpretation”. Without this principle no diverse doctrine could ever be refuted

So then HOW do you explain the ever increasing number of Protestant churches; EACH with their OWN set of faith beliefs?

It is one thing to say “we-reject-private-interpretations”, it is quite another to demonstrate an errant interpretation in Scripture…QUOTE]

ACTUALLY & objectively NOT: READ please the passages I posted eariler

GBY

Patrick

 

[PJM]

PJM, doctrines like Reformed Theology only continue because adherents dismiss verses; they read 1Cor2:14 and dismiss verse 12. They read 2Cor4:3-4 and dismiss 2Cor3:16. They read Acts13:48 and dismiss verse 46. They read Jeremiah 17:9 and dismiss verse 10. They read Rom9:15 and dismiss Rom11:32! And on and on and on!

It is easy to say “You cannot have your own private interpretation” — but unless someone can show how an understanding is any kind of “interpretation” rather than something an Apostle clearly stated, it’s the same dismissal-of-verses performed by the Reformed Theologians!

Can you disagree?

If I [me here] understand your point ?] your saying what I have consistently preached: …“TRUTH can be noting other than singular per define issue.”

WHY do YOU suppose the number ONE has great significance in the NT’s Inspired TEXT?

GBY

 

[jcrichton]

When you agree that “we can possess and know we possess eternal life, now” (based on verses like 1Jn5:11-13, “You can KNOW you HAVE eternal life”) — that’s the same thing as when someone of my understanding says “we are saved”.

And you and I agree that we may not be saved tomorrow; but here, now and today, we can say with certainty “we are saved”, because we are merely repeating the promise Jesus made; and Paul repeated, and Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John, and everyone.

From God’s side salvation is guaranteed — “the gifts and calling are irrevocable”. But from our side we can throw the gift away, as we can with any gift. That does not mean that when we had the gift, we could not then say “I was saved”…

With complete respect, no one says “regardless of our walk”. I mean no offense, there is something called “a straw man” — overturning an argument by responding to something that was not asserted. Many don’t even realize that is what they’re doing.

John said, “He who has the Son has eternal life — …you may KNOW you HAVE eternal life.” For you or I to say “I have Jesus, I have eternal life”, is identically the same as saying, “I am saved”. That’s all it means; we are saved who receive Jesus and walk in Him, and we WILL BE saved if we CONTINUE walking in Him.

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…please understand that I’m not implying that you have such understanding… yet, it is not a straw man issue since there are, at least in my part of the neighborhood, “Christians” who are working on various levels/understanding of OSAS’s theology… they do not understand “Salvation” today but “got it in my pocket” (can’t lose it no matter what, even if a person rejects God’s Commandments… just take a hold of Jesus and voilà “eternally saved”) and no way no how (even if I abuse drugs, engage in extramarital affairs, get divorced…) will I not end up in Heaven.

…some still prescribe a “saved” prayer (recite such prayer and ‘man, you are Jesus’s and you are forever saved’)–it could be that these people that I encounter are offshoots of offshoots… but they are there… teaching “salvation gained.”

“Vocabulary” is important; but it’s not your vocabulary, or mine — it’s what the Apostles said, and which absolutes we can establish in their words.

…well, while this seems quite clear cut… it is not–due to our various understanding/vocabulary we can actually abscond the meaning of the Word.

That is all that, “I AM SAVED”, means.

Specifying “in-Christ” rather than a useless head-knowledge is an admirable position; yet — “saved” by Scriptural definition is the same perception, “in-Christ”.

“if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” Rom10:9-10

Confessing Jesus as Lord, believing in one’s heart, is “saved”. That is what Paul said. You’re right that does not mean “in-our-pockets-don’t-worry-about-tomorrow”, but here today we can be “saved” – is there any other meaning to Paul’s words?
…the above is an exact example… do you know that many are teaching such “saved” theology? We do not need to abide in Christ… just simply own Scriptures/prayer that states that we are “saved” and we are Saved!

Never mind that Jesus explicitly states: ‘Abide in Me that I may ABIDE in you’ or ‘if you Love Me, Obey My Commandment…’

…all of that is passé; just stake a claim and you’re there!

And as you said, “vocabulary” (semantics) are important; how can we resolve differences, if we do not understand each other’s meaning?

I think this is an excellent discussion; if we do not come to complete agreement (and no two or more people in the world will, until Jesus returns), then we are gaining great insight into each other’s understanding! And others are watching, and between our words they are learning about Jesus.

And we work together to become and remain family in Christ, forever; and to promote Him to a lost and dying world.

It is the reason why I engage everyone (including Jehovah Witnesses), in an effort to dispel the errors and misunderstandings and to get at the Unity to which we are Called to by Christ!

(Are you sure

Catholics don’t say “amen”?)…yeah, throughout all my parishes’ experiences “Amen” has always been as a response to a Prayer during the liturgy; though I’ve been privy to Catholics using it in prayer/seminary groups and even some of the speakers (which I suspect are converts to Catholicism) urging: 'can I hear an “Amen?”

…as I said before, Christ is the God of the Amen, so “Amen!”

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

John15:4 — in what Universe does John not intend, “Abide in Me, and (then I will abide) in you!”?

It’s the same in 2Tim2:11-13; in what Universe is the word “BUT”, not absolutely implied?

"For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
If we endure, we will also reign with Him;

(BUT!)

If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself."

Two positions – “died to sin, and live with Jesus; endure with Jesus and reign with Him.”

And, “deny Him and He will deny us (and we will NOT live and reign with Him, Matt10:33); become faithless and perish!”

**Here again Paul asserts God’s dependability; His faithfulness is perfect, even if WE turn away from Him and perish! **It wasn’t His fault…

With or without the blackbirds baked in?

:extrahappy:

Hi, Gadgeteer!

…that understanding alone should give pause to the OSAS theologists…

…while God Remains Faithful to His Salvific Plan, man can, and does, reject it!

Tangent
(…remember my statement about being pedestrian? I’ve never got that “blackbirds” pie thing–I remember seeing a cartoon where there are generous pastries and the character (I think it was a wolf) cuts into a pie and a bunch of blackbirds fly away–net gives me nothing… can you shed some light?)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Gadgeteer]

Which explains the ever growing multiplicity of non-Catholic-Christian churches

There’s diversity within Catholicism. But I think there are so many Protestant churches, because people have not “hidden God’s word in their hearts”. Ask the majority of those who call themselves “Christian” — why are you saved? And they’ll usually answer, “Because I believe _____”

No, Jesus came not to bring a belief! He said (Jn17:3): “Father, eternal life is knowing You, and knowing (Me).”

SURE

It’s objectively termed TRUTH, which can be nothing other than singular per defined issue. Friend, where in the BIBLE is there evidence that GOD ever sought, desired, wanted, tolerated or accepted OTHER competing faiths?

You’re right; He does not.

So – how does a Reformed Theology person (for example), read Acts17:26-31 and still cling to “Sovereign Predestined Salvation”?

"He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
…“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

God makes it so that all men can seek Him and can find Him – He’s not far from anyone (per RT, He’s infinitely far from the unelect!). All men everywhere are commanded to repent, the Resurrection is proof to every person.

What’s unclear or negotiable about that?

**My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible?

Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another Verse, passage or teaching:

Were this even the slightest possibility; [it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or learn Christ Faith”**

I agree; and – where two verses seem to conflict, the whole must be consulted for understanding. Have you conversed with RT’s about Eph1:4-5 and 11, Rom8:29-35 and 9:11-21? These seem to teach “Predestined Election” — but if so, they would therefore be in conflict with all the rest!

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: [20] Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. [21] For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

There is prophecy, and there is teaching on maturity; where wording is clear and no second meaning is possible, there is no “interpretation”.

“Whenever something is good it does not depend on us getting our way, but on God getting His way, and whether we do God’s Will depends on us [humbly] loving God. Moreover to love God we must [actually] know God, [not just know OF God].” Bread of Life booklet January 9, 2016”[Mt 7:21]

By now you know me, and you know I completely agree with that.

That my friend is your Protestant [to PROTEST] subjective interpretation

It is “subjective interpretation”, if a second (and more credible) meaning can be demonstrated.

James 2:22 says “faith is perfected (completed) by works”. Does it not?
Romans4:2-5 says justification is not by works — does it not?

Rom4:2 "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 "For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
Rom 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

• Does verse 2 affirm Abraham was not justified by works (else he could boast)?
• Does verse 3 affirm Abraham’s belief was credited as righteousness/justification?
• Does verse 4 teach that wages are dues for work, but salvation is by God’s favor?
• Does verse 5 teach that one who does not work, still can have faith credited as justification?

Four verses — are any of the above bulletted points answerable with “no”?

 

[Gadgeteer]

Gadget:

Is that just “an interpretation”? Or is it clearly what James, and Paul, stated? Is there any other interpretation possible?

THERE IS; read the following paying close attention to the HS inspired singular tense words

Mt.10:1-5,

The Apostles were given authority over unclean spirits.

Mt 16:15-19,

Jesus is the foundation; “You are Peter (Petros little stone), and upon this rock (petra bedrock) I will build My foundation.” Not going to argue with anyone about this, it’s one of the differences between Protestants and Catholics. See 1Cor3:11:

“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Jn 17:17-20,

Not sure your intent here, “sanctify them in truth”.

Mt 28:19-20;

Go and make disciples of all nations…

Eph 4: 1-7

Be diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; there is one Lord, one faith, one gospel.

& Eph 2:19-22

We are fellow citizens with the saints.

each of which is precisely and exclusively directed by JESUS to and only to HIS CC

If you’ll forgive me, can you please explain how these verses connect with James 2 (“we are justified by works and not by faith alone”), and Rom4 (we are justified by faith and not by works)?

Which objectively is false by the evidence that every “church” is identified by ITS OWN set of faith beliefs & the ever increasing number of NEW “christian” Churches.

And that’s why we “study to show ourselves approved”; the more we know about Scripture the more we learn how it fits together, and the better we can “both exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict” (Titus1:9).

So then HOW do you explain the ever increasing number of Protestant churches; EACH with their OWN set of faith beliefs?

They’re not studying Scripture, but rather reading treatises where others cite narrow and mis-contexted verses. Take the idea of “Pre-Trib Rapture” – some are certain Rev3:10 teaches “Because you have kept the word of My preseverance, I will KEEP YOU FROM the hour of testing” — meaning, "you will be raptured out of the world". But if one reads Jn17:15, the same “tereo-ek” means guard amidst, not “remove-you-from-the-earth” (which is “airo-ek” in Jn17:15).

See how knowing more Scripture commands accurate understanding?

It is one thing to say “we-reject-private-interpretations”, it is quite another to demonstrate

an errant interpretation in Scripture.

ACTUALLY & objectively NOT: READ please the passages I posted earlier

Again, I’m going to have to impose on your patience, and ask you to help me understand what you meant. What is a “CC”?

GBY

Patrick

I thank you for the time you invested in me, and look forward to your further thoughts.

 

[Gadgeteer]

If I [me here] understand your point ?] you’re saying what I have consistently preached: …“TRUTH can be nothing other than singular per define issue.”

No, I’m saying that most places in Scripture have only one possible understanding. Towards that, I gave several examples of verses that RT’s are certain teach “Predestined Salvation” — and by simply reading context, we establish clear meaning which does not allow the idea of “sovereign predestined salvation”. They have only one possible meaning, therefore the word “INTERPRETATION” does not apply; there is no interpretation where only one meaning is possible.

WHY do YOU suppose the number ONE has great significance in the NT’s Inspired TEXT?

GBY

I’m very sorry, perhaps I’m sleepy; what “number ONE”, having great significance in the New Testament’s inspired text?

(Sometimes you hafta be patient with us elders…)